J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing

J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
Criterial Freezing in the Syntax of Particles
Josef Bayer
University of Konstanz
1. Goal and outline of the talk
It will be shown that in the grammar of German discourse as well as focus particles are part of
the functional structure of the clause, and that particles generally take scope where they are
merged. A challenge comes from those cases in which particles appear to form constituents
with sub-sentential phrases. The focus will be on discourse particles. Part 1 develops an
account of discourse particles in wh-questions and their dependence on interrogative force.
Part 2 shows how discourse particles can directly combine with wh-phrases, and how their
movement and scopal behavior can be accounted for on the basis of the account developed in
part 1. Importantly, their scope freezes in positions lower than seen in surface structure. Part 3
integrates focus particles and shows that the analysis gets close to a unified account of focus
particles and discourse particles.
2. Discourse particles in situ
Discourse particles (DiPs, in German Modalpartikeln or Abtönungspartikeln) are geared to
certain clause types (declarative, polar interrogative, wh-interrogative, exclamative,
imperative etc.) and arise mainly in root clauses. They make a semantic contribution by codetermining the illocutionary force of an utterance (Thurmair 1989; Coniglio 2011). whquestions may with denn (lit. “then”), wohl (lit. “well”), nur/bloß (lit. “only”), schon (lit.
“already”). Consider semantic variations over (1).
(1) Wo
wohnt er?
Where lives he
‘Where does he live?’
(2) a. Wo wohnt er denn?
Given a common ground G between speaker and hearer, where does he live in relation
to some aspect of G; denn is anaphoric to G; no out-of-the blue usage, see König
(1977), Wegener (2002), Grosz (2005), Bayer (2012).
b. Wo wohnt er wohl?
Speaker signals that he/she is in a state of uncertainty about the answer, see
Zimmermann (2004).
1
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
c. Wo wohnt er nur/bloß?
Speaker signals that he/she has already unsuccessfully tried to find an answer;
Obenauer’s (2004) “can’t-find-the value questions.”
d. Wo wird er er schon wohnen?
By using schon, speaker creates some scale by which the entities (here places) that can
replace the variable are ranked according to their plausibility or likelihood of yielding
a true answer. Speaker creates the implicature that few entities are high enough on the
scale to make the answer true. Yields a rhetorical question; see Meibauer (1994),
Bayer and Obenauer (2011).
Although DiPs contribute to Force, they arise lower in the clause in a fixed position to the left
of vP. Weak pronouns must and other topical constituents may move to the left of DiP.
(3) a. Wann könnte denn Otto den Brief gestern
ins Büro mitgenommen haben?
when could DENN Otto the letter yesterday to office along-taken have
‘When could Otto have yesterday taken the letter to the office? (I’m wondering)
b. Wann könnte Otto denn Otto den Brief gestern ins Büro mitgenommen haben?
c. Wann könnte Otto den Brief denn Otto den Brief gestern ins Büro mitgenommen
haben?
d. Wann könnte Otto den Brief gestern denn Otto den Brief gestern ins Büro
mitgenommen haben?
e. Wann könnte Otto den Brief gestern ins Büro denn Otto den Brief gestern ins Büro
mitgenommen haben?
(4)
[ForceP Force° … [FinP Fin° [TopP ... [ Prt [vP ... ]]]]]
Unlike adverbs, DiPs are weak closed-class elements. Unlike adverbs, they can never be
preposed nor postposed; they are  immobile. These properties follow if DiPs are functional
heads (that fail to undergo systematic movement such as T-to-C movement).
(5)
[ForceP Force° … [FinP Fin° [TopP ... [PrtP Prt° [vP ... ]]]]]
DiPs may co-occur as long as they are clause-type compatible, but their order is fixed (s.
Thurmair (1989), Coniglio (2011). Only denn>wohl>schon allowed.
(6)
a. Wann könnte Otto denn den Brief wohl gestern schon ins Büro mitgenommen haben?
b. *Wann könnte Otto wohl den Brief denn gestern schon ins Büro mitgenommen haben?
c. *Wann könnte Otto schon den Brief wohl gestern denn ins Büro mitgenommen haben?
2
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
Problem: Force c-commands the DiP, but the DiP is arguably not part of ForceP. How can it
contribute to Force? Potential solutions in terms of LF movement or formal feature movement
must be discarded. Why?
To see this, consider DiPs in clausal complement.
(7) a. Wo glaubst du, daß
where believe you that
man hier nachts um 3 Uhr schon Benzin bekommt?
one here at.night at 3 o`clock SCHON gasoline gets
‘Where do you believe that one can get gasoline here at 3 o’clock in the night? –
Nowhere/hardly anywhere!’
b. #Wo glaubst du schon, daß man hier nachts um 3 Uhr Benzin bekommt?
(7a)  (7b); in (7a) the speaker asks about the places x such that the addressee believes there
is a plausibility ranking of x according to which one can get gasoline in x at 3 o’clock in the
night; (7b) is syntactically ok but semantically odd because the speaker asks about the places
x such that there is a plausibility ranking of the addressee’s BELIEVING that one can get
gasoline in x at 3 o’clock in the night. Thus, the DiP must take scope exactly where we see it.
The DiP schon in (7a) does not raise up to the root clause. Apart from this, LF-movement
across the CP-boundary would be rather unexpected.
Suggestion: (i) DiP accesses Force via probe-goal agreement; (ii) under successive cyclic whmovement as in (7a), the Q-sensitive DiPs under consideration can be probed by an
uninterpretable interrogative C (s. Bayer and Obenauer (2011) and subsequent work).
(8)
Wo glaubst du [CP wo daß man hier …[PrtP schon [vP wo Benzin bekommt]]]]?
In the absence of long extraction, the DiP interpretation of schon in CP is unavailable; schon
can only be understood as the temporal adverb ‘already’.
(9)
Wer glaubt, dass man hier nachts um 3 Uhr schon Benzin bekommt?
who believes that one here at.night at 3 o`clock SCHON gasoline gets
‘Who believes that one can get gasoline here already as early as 3 o’clock in the night?’
The status of DiPs in complex wh-questions is empirically as well as theoretically explored in
Bayer, Häussler & Bader (2015).
How do DiPs enter the composition of Force? Assume they have an uninterpretable
and unvalued clause-type (CT) feature, here uQ[ ], which is probed by a CT-head, here Q[ ],
which may be interpretable or not. This is possible in the feature sharing theory of Pesetsky
and Torrego (2007). Force must be split up in CT and speech act (SA). 1 Speas and Tenny
1
Notice that in German, the ASS(ertion)-sensitive DiP ja can co-occur with the Q-sensitive DiP denn in a
question if ja belongs to a separate clausal or quasi-clausal domain as in
(i) Wo hast du [DP diesen [AP ja unwahrscheinlich begabten] Pianisten] denn gehört?
where have you this
JA incredibly
gifted
pianist
DENN heard
3
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
(2003), Haegeman (2002), Haegeman and Hill (2011), Miyagawa (2012), Coniglio and
Zegrean (2012) and others argue for a speech act phrase (SAP). The derivation for licensing a
Q-sensitive DiP under cyclic wh movement runs as follows (valuation as signaled by the
index 1).
 MERGE Prt 
(10) a. [vP wh [vP … wh …]]
b. [PrtP PrtuQ[ ] [vP … wh …]]]
 MOVE wh 
c. [CTP CTuQ[ ] [CP wh C [TP … [PrtP PrtuQ[ ] [vP … wh …]]]]]
 AGREE 
d. [CTP CTuQ[1] [CP wh C [TP … [PrtP PrtuQ[1] [vP … wh …]]]]]
 MOVE wh 
…
e. [SAP SAuQ[ ] [CTP CTiQ[ ] [FinP wh [Fin‘ Vfin [TP … [CTP CTuQ[1]
[CP wh C [TP … [PrtP PrtuQ[1] [vP … wh …]]]]]]]]]]
 AGREE 
f. [SAP SAuQ[1] [CTP CTiQ[1] [FinP wh [Fin‘ Vfin [TP … [CTP CTuQ[1]
[CP wh C [TP … [PrtP PrtuQ[1] [vP … wh …]]]]]]]]]]
Agreement between CT and Prt guarantees that the CT is of the type that results from the
application of Prt to CT. By transitivity, agreement between SA and CT guarantees that the
root clause is an interrogative speech act enriched with the specific respective “flavors” of Prt
that had been exemplified in (2) above.
Importantly, the DiP (Prt) itself does not move. It stays precisely in the pre-vP position in
which it was merged in (10b). This is its  irreversible scope position. We shall see in the
next section that it is this position in which moved elements undergo criterial freezing.
3. Discourse particles ex situ
Let us repeat one of the classical diagnostics for DiPs: They are immobile (s. arbitrary work
on DiPs). We interpreted this as following from their status as functional heads. According to
this analysis, DiPs are on a par with v, T, Neg, C, Fin, Force etc.
Nevertheless, the generalization seems to have a hole: DiPs can be displaced to the left
periphery if they co-occur with a wh-phrase, and they can do this even “long distance”.
‘Where did you hear this indeed incredibly gifted pianist? (I’m wondering)’
The speaker who takes responsibility for the adequacy of ja is identical with the speaker who takes responsibility
for the adequacy of denn. The AP is by default an assertive CT but does not constitute an SA. It must be linked
to the speaker of the SA of the root clause. (s. Hinterhölzl and Krifka (2013), Struckmeier (2014), Viesel
(2014)).
4
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
(11)
a. [An wen denn] könnte er sich __ gewandt haben?
at who DENN could he REFL turned have
‘Who on earth could he have turned to?’
b. [An wen denn] glaubst du,[ __ dass er sich __ gewandt haben könnte]?
‘Who on earth do you believe than he could he have turned to?’
As the square bracket suggests, whP + DiP seems to form a constituent. If not, the V2constraint would be violated. But if this is true, DiP is really ex situ, outside the scope
position we have been arguing for, and in obvious violation of the scope facts that had been
demonstrated so far.
A second scandal emerges in connection with rigid order. The strict hierarchy that had been
diagnosed above, e.g. denn>wohl>schon in the examples in (6), seems to be disrupted in the
well-formed example (12).
(12)
[An wen schon] wird er sich damals denn gewandt haben?
‘Who on earth will he have tuned to after all in those days?’ (the answer is obvious)
In (12), the surface order is schon>denn. This order is normally strictly excluded, even across
a CP-boundary:
(13)
*[An wen] glaubst du schon, dass er sich damals denn gewandt haben wird?
The pertinent questions are, (i) how can phrases like wh+DiP emerge, and (ii) how can one
account for the strange exception to word order and scope? My account is the following:
(I) DiPs do have a fixed position in the functional cartography of the clause as has been shown
in section 1.
(II) However, DiPs can alternatively be merged with a wh-phrase. This operation yields a
 ‘SMALL PARTICLE PHRASE’ (SPrtP). What’s the motivation for this? Assume that Prt° can
optionally adopt a feature for  EMPHASIS. Bayer and Obenauer (2011) suggest that Prt°
undergoes merger with wh and forces wh – due to an EPP-feature – to raise to its left. For
further discussion and extension of the analysis see Bayer and Trotzke (2015).
(14)
 MOVE 
 AGREE 
a. Prt°uEmp [ ] wh iEmp [ ]
b. [wh iEmp [ ] [Prt°uEmp [ ] wh iEmp [ ] ]]
c. [wh iEmp [7] [Prt°uEmp [7] wh iEmp [7] ]]
Intuitively, the whP in a SPrtP bears extra stress. Trotzke and Turco (2014) support this
impression with experimental data that show a distinct acoustic signature for this construction
as compared with a) the non-adjacent position (wh … Prt°) and b) to the adjacent position of a
PP (wh+PP …, e.g. [Wo bei euch] kann ich heute überhaupt …? „where at your place can I
today …?“). Onset of the wh-word, /v/, and the following vowel were significantly longer in
5
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
the SPrtP. As in the study by Niebuhr (2010), the intensifying emphatically pronounced
words were not realized with steeper pitch slopes than corresponding non-emphatic words.
This suggests the existence of a specific phonetic correlate that distinguishes emphatic
fronting from correlates of information structure.
(III) Given the phrase structure in (5), SPrtP cannot be derived from this structure. Movement
of wh to the head of the particle phrase (PrtP) would violate the Extension Condition.
Furthermore, movement of this head would violate scope freezing, which is otherwise highly
reliable.2 We know that the scope of a DiP that has been merged into a scope position cannot
be manipulated. Thus, an alternative derivation is needed.
(IV) The proposed alternative is that the SPrtP is built in a  SEPARATE WORKSPACE WS2,
and is then put into the numeration which serves workspace WS1 to build VP, vP and its
structural extensions. SPrtP is first merged in vP. Being a wh-phrase, it move to the edge of
vP. In analogy to the merger of C in wh-movement, the functional head Prt is merged with vP
projecting PrtP. Prt has the uninterpretable unvalued feature uPrt[ ]. The SPrtP moves into the
specifier of PrtP and values uPrt[ ]. At this point, the particle is de-activated and its scope is
frozen.
(V) The SPrtP is, of course, also a wh-phrase whose wh-feature is still active. It cannot be deactivated before the upper clausal periphery (SpecFinP etc.) has been reached. Thus, SPrtP
moves out of SpecPrtP pied-piping Prt along. It is important to see that in this step Prt has no
core grammatical function any longer. This is in agreement with the classical observation that
DiPs are immobile. Their “displacement” to the left periphery is simply an epiphenomenon of
pied piping. (15) gives the derivation (features sometimes suppressed):
(15)
a.
[ ( …) V]

MERGE SPrtP 
b. [vP … SPrtP (…)V]
 MOVE SPrtP 
c. [vP SPrtP[vP … SPrtP (…)V]]
 MERGE Prt 
d. [PrtP PrtuPrt[ ] [vP SPrtP[vP … SPrtP (…)V]]]
 MOVE SPrtP 
e. [PrtP SPrtPiPrt[ ] [Prt’ PrtuPrt[ ] [vP SPrtP[vP … SPrtP (…)V]]]]
 AGREE 
f. [PrtP SPrtPiPrt[9] [Prt’ PrtuPrt[9] [vP SPrtP[vP … SPrtP (…)V]]]]
This is the stage at which the particle of the SPrtP is deactivated and frozen. Due to the
concomitant decomposition of SPrtP into Prt and the wh-phrase proper, the semantic problem
of scope failure is solved.
Further movement raises SPrtP, which is, of course, also a wh-phrase, into SpecFinP etc.
g. [FinP SPrtPiwh[12] [Fin’ Finuwh[12] … [PrtP SPrtPiwh[12]; iPrt[9] [Prt’ PrtuPrt[9]
[vP SPrtP [vP … SPrtP (…)V]]]]]
2
Reis (1992) suggests in passing that the DiP may cliticize to the wh-phrase from its base position. This would,
however, amount to extraction of the DiP from its otherwise irreversible scope position, and it is unclear why the
process of cliticization may target exactly a wh-phrase and nothing else.
6
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
It is easy to see now how the problem of wrong order is solved. Recall that example (12) is
well-formed but shows the linear order schon>denn. Our theory predicts that this order is
irrelevant because schon has taken scope under denn as indicated with  in (16).
(16) [FinP [An wen schon] wird er sich damals [PrtP1 denn [PrtP2 [an wen schon] Prt
[vP … gewandt haben]]]]?
check wh!
(17)
an wen schon
check Prt!
Vfin
wird
…
Prt°1
denn
…
an wen schon
Prt°2
vP
… an wen schon …
SPrtPs move in close analogy to wh-phrases to the closest checking position. Since Prt is
merged optionally, and since SPrtP moves cyclically through SpecCP, SPrtP may value a
silent Prt-head at a distance.
(18)
[Vor wem denn] glaubst du, dass sich James Bond schon fürchten würde?
from who DENN believe you that REF James Bond SCHON fear
would
‘Who do you believe that James Bond would be afraid of?’ – Of no one, of course!
Sentences with DiPs ex situ like (18) can give rise to ambiguity between a low and a high
construal of denn. The corresponding examples with denn in situ give the two obtainable
readings:
(19)
a. Vor wem glaubst du, dass sich James Bond denn schon fürchten würde?
b. Vor wem glaubst du denn, dass sich James Bond schon fürchten würde?
7
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
In (18), scoping over the embedded clause is ok because the uninterpretable Q-feature of denn
can be valued thanks to the cyclic movement of the wh-phrase via the embedded CP. Scoping
over the matrix clause is equally ok because no second Prt may have been merged in the
embedded clause, and therefore valuation via SPrtP must be postponed until Prt is merged
into the root clause.
4. Integrating focus particles
The syntax of focus particles (FP) is up to now highly controversial. There are essentially two
camps, the “adverb camp” and the “mixed camp”.
 adverb camp: Jacobs (1983); Büring & Hartmann (2001) and many others;
assumes that an FP (an adverb) always adjoins to a proposition (vP or CP) over which
it takes scope. The proposition must not be an argument, i.e. FP+DP, FP+PP etc.
should never occur, at least as long as DP, PP etc. is an argument.
 mixed camp: Bayer (1996; 1999); Reis (2005); Barbiers (2014) and a few others;
FP adjoins to vP or to some other major category. According to Bayer (1996; 1999),
FP is a syncategorematic head which projects either a vP (over which it takes scope) or
some other major constituent, i.e. DP, PP, an argumental CP etc. In the latter case,
FP+XP has to move through the specifier of an FP in scope position and discharge its
scope there.
English shows that FP may form a smaller constituent than assumed by the adverb theory,
with clear semantic consequences, cf. Taglicht (1984), Rooth (1985; 1992).
(20)
a.
We are required to [vP study [DP only SYNTAX]]
AMBIGUOUS
scope unfixed
b.
We are required to [vP only study SYNTAX]
UNAMBIGUOUS
scope fixed
c.
We are [vP only required to study SYNTAX]
UNAMBIGUOUS
scope fixed
In (20a), only can associate with the lower vP; this amounts to (20b). It can alternatively
associate with the higher vP; this amounts to (20c). If so, the formation [XP FP XP] must be
available somehow. For the adverb theory this should be an “exception”.
The strict assumption of surface scope forces the adverb theory to the adoption of an
unconventional phrase structure.
8
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
(21)
[FinP Nur [FinP EINER
[Fin‘ hat [TP die Polizisten angegriffen]]]]
only
ONE (person) has
the policemen attacked
‘Only ONE person attacked the policemen’
V3
Intuitively, it is awkward to parse (21) not as a V2 but as a as a V3 construction. Association
with focus must target the adjacent XP. *Nur einer hat die POLIZISTEN angegriffen is out.
But here this is not automatically excluded. It must be stipulated. Cf. Reis (2005: 470ff)
Notice next there is an alternative to (21) in which according to the adverb theory the focus
would not even be “bound” by the FP due to a lack of c-command; see (22b).
(22) a.
EINER nur hat die Polizisten angegriffen
b.
[FinP EINER [FinP nur [Fin‘ hat [TP die Polizisten angegriffen]]]]
V3
Standard grammars of German mention this construction (Zifonun, Hoffmann & Strecker
1997: 1010), and authentic examples abound. (Notice also English examples like JOHN even
understands “Syntactic Structures”). Such cases set up a huge problem for the adverb theory.
What remains is a scope argument. The adverb theory claims that (23a) is unambiguous
and can never have the meaning of (23b), cf. Büring and Hartmann (2001: 260ff) and
Sternefeld (2007: 336).
(23) a.
Nur seine Mutter
liebt jeder
only his mother-ACC loves everyone-NOM
b.
Jeder1
liebt nur seine1 Mutter
everyone-NOM loves only his mother-ACC
ONLY > EVERY
EVERY > ONLY
It is claimed that the FP must be adjoined to CP because it can never reconstruct, even if the
DP would reconstruct. Thus even if the possessive pronoun can be forced to be bound by the
quantifier, the FP cannot be in its scope.
Let’s assume the judgment is correct. To see that this is no argument in favor of a structure as
in (21) consider scrambling in a derivation along the lines we have been argued for so far.
 Assume first scrambling of the object-DP over the subject.
(24)
[vP [DP nur seine Mutter] [vP jeder [DP nur seine Mutter] liebt]]
If scrambling is A-scrambling, it bleeds binding.3
 Assume next merger of an empty Prt endowed with an unvalued FP feature.
(25)
[Prt‘ PrtuFP [vP [DP nur seine Mutter] [vP jeder [DP nur seine Mutter] liebt]]]
 Next DP raises to SpecPrtP and values the FP-feature on Prt:
3
If it is A-bar scrambling (associated with extra focus) reconstruction would obtain and binding remain an
option: see below.
9
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
(26) [PrtP [DP nur seine Mutter] [Prt‘ PrtuFP  [vP [DP nur seine Mutter] [vP jeder
[DP nur seine Mutter] liebt]]]]
At this stage, the scope of FP is frozen, and the predicted scope is ONLY > EVERY.
 DP will then proceed to SpecFinP for reasons that have nothing to do with FP’s scope.
(27) [FinP [DP nur seine Mutter] [Fin‘ liebt … [PrtP [DP nur seine Mutter] [Prt‘ PrtuFP  [vP [DP nur
seine Mutter] [vP jeder [DP nur seine Mutter] liebt]]]]]]
Ergo: Contrary to the assumptions of the adverb theory, the surface appearance of the FP in
the highest position of the clause has no scopal relevance at all.
Focus scrambling (A-bar scrambling), unlike A-scrambling, does allow “reconstruction”,
(cf. daß [seine1 MUTTER] jeder1 [seine1 MUTTER] liebt). If so, it is easy to see that we can
get the bound reading without being committed to the low scope of the FP:4 The derivation is
as in (27), the only difference now being that the quantifier can bind the possessive pronoun.
In the present theory, there is a fixed pre-vP functional particle position through whose
specifier the small particle phrase nur seine MUTTER has to pass. The FP of this phrase
cannot take scope where it has first been merged inside vP. Thus, while the copy contains the
FP, and while the copy may remain present due to A-bar scrambling, the FP is uninterpretable
inside vP. Its scope freezes only once the small particle phrase FP+XP raises to SpecPrtP.
To conclude this excursion into the domain of focus particles, we see that the syntax of
DiPs is obviously more closely related to the syntax of FPs than previously assumed. The
architecture is essentially the same. Just like DiPs, FPs can form smaller constituents in which
the particle lacks scope. In both cases, such constituents have to pass through a fixed
functional position for criterial feature valuation.
4
Notice that under the scope inversion intonation seen in (i), the scope of the FP is in the scope of negation (cf.
Reis 2005, 478)
(i) /Nur FLEISCH aß NIEmand\
NEG > ONLY
only meat
ate no.one
If so, one should not prima facie exclude the possibility of a low scope reading. Imagine a context in which a
macho type challenges some guys by claiming that they are real mommy boys and none of them has ever had a
woman. If this person says Nur seine MUTTER liebt jeder von euch, a reading with EVERY > ONLY appears to
be possible.
10
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
5. General conclusions
i. Attributing functional head status to particles, DiPs as well as FPs opens an avenue of
research that puts these elements right into core syntax.
ii. Particles occupy fixed functional positions in clause structure. These Prt positions have
been identified as criterial positions in analogy to criterial positions familiar from the work
of Rizzi (1991/1996) and following work and Haegeman (1995).
iii. Particles can alternatively be merged with smaller phrases such as DP, PP etc. The scope
of these Small Particle Phrases (SPrtP) is unfixed. The feature of the particle is active. It is
deactivated once SPrtP passes through the specifier of a matching criterial head.
iv. The syntax of particles – DiPs as well as FPs – echoes structures and processes which are
familiar from more widely studied domains of grammar, especially wh-movement.
REFERENCES
Barbiers, Sjef. 2014. Syntactic doubling and deletion as a source of variation. In Linguistic Variation
in the Minimalist Framework, M. Carme Picallo (ed), 197-223. Oxford: OUP.
Bayer, Josef, Jana Häussler, and Markus Bader. 2015. A New Diagnostic for Cyclic Wh-Movement.
Discourse Particles in German Questions. Ms. UKonstanz, UPotsdam, UFrankfurt.
-- and Hans-Georg Obenauer. 2011. Discourse particles, clause structure, and question types. The
Linguistic Review 28: 449-491.
-- and Andreas Trotzke. 2015. The derivation and interpretation of left peripheral discourse particles.
To appear in Josef Bayer, Roland Hinterhölzl and Andreas Trotzke (eds.), Discourse-oriented
Syntax. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Büring, Daniel, and Katharina Hartmann. 2001. The Syntax and Semantics of Focus-Sensitive
Particles in German. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory 19. 229–281.
Coniglio, Marco. 2011. Die Syntax der deutschen Modalpartikeln: Ihre Distribution und Lizensierung
in Haupt- und Nebensätzen. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag.
-- and Iulia Zegrean. 2012. Splitting up force: evidence from discourse particles. In Lobke Aelbrecht,
Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons, 229–255.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Haegeman, Liliane. 1995. The Syntax of Negation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
-- 2002. Anchoring to speaker, adverbial clauses and the structure of CP, Georgetown University
Working Papers in Theoretical Linguistics 2. 117–180.
11
J. Bayer, Criterial freezing in the syntax of particles, Freezing: Theoretical Approaches and Empirical Domains 3-4 July 2015, Tübingen
-- and Virginia Hill. 2013. The syntacticization of discourse. In Raffaella Folli, Christina Sevdali and
Robert Truswell (eds), Syntax and its Limits. 370-390. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Hinterhölzl, Roland and Manfred Krifka. 2013. Modal particles in adverbial and adnominal clauses.
ms., Università di Venezia, Ca’Foscari and Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin.
Miyagawa, Shigeru. 2012. Agreements that occur mainly in the main clause. In Lobke Aelbrecht,
Liliane Haegeman, and Rachel Nye (eds.), Main Clause Phenomena. New Horizons, 79–111.
Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Niebuhr, Oliver. 2010. On the phonetics of intensifying emphasis in German. Phonetica 67. 170-198.
Pesetsky, David and Esther Torrego. 2007. The syntax of valuation and the interpretability of features.
In Simin Karimi, Vida Samiian, and Wendy K. Wilkins (eds.), Phrasal and Clausal Architecture:
Syntactic Derivation and Interpretation, 262–294. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Reis, Marga. 1992. The category of invariant alles in wh-clauses: On syntactic quantifiers vs.
quantifying particles in German. In Rosemarie A. Tracy (ed.) Who Climbs the Grammar Tree. 465492. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
-- 2005.On the syntax of so-called focus particles in German – A reply to Büring and Hartmann 2001.
Natural Language & Linguistic Theory (2005) 23: 459–483.
Rizzi, Luigi. 1991/1996. Residual verb second and the Wh-Criterion. In Belletti, A. and Rizzi, L.
(eds.). Parameters and Functional Heads, 2, 63-90. New York, Oxford University Press.
Rooth, Mats. 1985. Association with Focus. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Massachusetts.
-- 1992. A theory of focus interpretation. Natural Language Semantics 1, 75-116.
Speas, Maggie and Carol Tenny. 2003. Configurational properties of point of view roles. In AnnaMaria di Sciullo (ed.) Asymmetry in Grammar. 315-344. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Sternefeld, Wolfgang. 2007. Syntax. Eine morphologisch motivierte generative Beschreibung des
Deutschen. Band 1. Tübingen: Stauffenburg.
Struckmeier, Volker. 2014. ‘Ja doch wohl’ C? Modal particles in German as C-related elements.
Studia Linguistica 68(1), 16–48.
Taglicht, Joseph 1984. Message and Emphasis: On Focus and Scope in English. Longman. London.
Thurmair, Maria. 1989. Modalpartikeln und ihre Kombinationen. Tübingen: Niemeyer.
Trotzke, Andreas and Giuseppina Turco. 2014. The grammatical reflexes of emphasis: New evidence
from German wh-questions. Under revision for Lingua.
Viesel, Yvonne. 2014. Discourse particles ‘embedded’: German ja in APs. to appear in Josef Bayer
and Volker Struckmeier (eds.). Discourse Particles – Formal Approaches to their Syntax and
Semantics. Linguistische Arbeiten. de Gruyter. Berlin.
Zifonun, Gisela, Ludger Hoffmann, and Bruno Strecker. 1997. Grammatik der deutschen Sprache. 3
Bände. Berlin. Mouton de Gruyter.
12

Download Report